Page Updated:- Sunday, 07 March, 2021.



Notes of 1900



From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald. 20 January 1900. Price 1d.



An interesting meeting of the Canterbury and District Licensed Victuallers and Beer Selers Protection Association was held at Mrs. Potter's, “Butchers' Arms,” Butchery Lane, Canterbury, on Monday last, the occasion being the presentation to Mr. J. W. Green (late Chairman of the Association) of a testimonial consisting of a handsome marble clock and a portrait of himself. There were present Mr. Edwin Beer (in the chair), Mr. W. L. Sands (Ltttlebourne), in the vice chair and also a numerous Company of licensed victuallers end friends.

Mr. E. Beer, in making the presentation, said that nothing could give him greater pleasure than presenting Mr. Green with the clock and portrait. He had known Mr. Green for the past thirty rears, and during that time be always had the greatest possible regard for him. Mr. Beer, in speaking with reference to Mr. Green as chairman of the Association, said he could not over estimate the excellent manner in which Mr. Green had filled the office of chairman. On looking through the books he (Mr. Beer) found Mr. Green joined the Association in 1879. He was elected vice-chairman in 1892, and chairman in 1894. During the five years he had been chairman the balance in hand had increased from 27 1s. 7d. to 80 1s. 4d., although there had been several heavy accounts to pay. Mr. Green, with three exceptions (through illness) had attended the whole of the meetings, and had conducted the same with tact and judgment that it was impossible to surpass. In asking Mr. Green to accept the clock and portrait, he said he was expressing the sentiment of the whole of the members of the Association, and of the trade, when he said no chairman could be held in greater esteem and regard than Mr. Green was. He thanked him for the valuable services he had rendered the Association, and trusted he would be spared many years to hear the tick of the clock and assist the Association and trade generally. (Applause.)

Mr. W. L. Sands, in endorsing Mr. Beers remarks, said that although it rained and blew hard, and he had to walk all the way from Littlebourn, he could not resist the temptation to come to Canterbury and have the pleasure of being at that meeting. He had been a member of the Association some years, but since Mr. Green was elected to the chair he had taken more interest in the Association than ever before. When he first attended the meetings there were only five or six present, but since Mr. Green was elected chairman the attendance had increased to 25 or 26, which spoke volumes. He (Mr. Sands) considered Mr. Green a perfect man of business, and his greatest ambition was to raise the standard of the licensed victuallers at large. He hoped and trusted that Mr. Green would long be spared to assist the Association. (Applause.)

Mr. Green, in returning thanks, impressed upon the members present the advisability of joining and helping in the working of such an Association as theirs, and reviewed the progress of the Association during the past few years. He also congratulated the Association upon the greet improvement that had been made in the conduct of the houses generally, and impressed upon the members the advisability of continuing that improvement by, at all times, bringing anyone misconducting himself upon licensed premises before the magistrates, as he considered that the most effectual way of suppressing rowdiness. He also spoke upon the Royal Commission and the likely legislation that might lake place upon the two reports. Mr. Green, speaking of the temperance question, stated that there was no more real believer in temperance than the licensed victualler, and that of all the people in the world the licensed victualler detested was the drunkard, he being a nuisance to the publican and also his customers. Mr. Green also spoke of the advantages of such Associations as this throughout the land during election times, as by acting collectively they had greater weight than by acting individually. He advised them at all times to very carefully examine and watch any bills introduced into the House of Commons affecting the licensing question. In concluding, Mr. Green thanked the members most heartily for their kindness in presenting him with such handsome presents, and assured them he would continue to take the greatest interest in the Association and the trade at large. (Applause.)

Mr. W. H. Baggs apologised for the absence of Mr. W. H. Checkley through illness. and it was decided that Mr. Beggs should convey to Mr. Checkley the sympathy of the meeting and wish him a speedy recovery.

The clock was supplied by Mr. Oxbrow, and the portrait by Mr. H. B. Collie. Both bore a plate with the following inscription:- “Presented to Mr. J. W. Green by the members of the Canterbury and District Licenced Victuallers' Association, in recognition of his services as chairman from 1894 to 1899.”

A vote of thanks to the Chairman and officers closed the meeting.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 2 February, 1900.


George Selmes, who did not appear, was summoned by Elizabeth Bowles to show cause why he should not be adjudged the father of her illegitimate child, and that an order for maintenance be made.

Elizabeth Bowles, 19 years of age, living with her sister at 16, Hawkesbury Street, Dover, said that on September 1st, 1897, she went into service with Mr. Selmes at Hastings. He is a married man, living with his wife, and had two children. He keeps the “White Lion” public house, (Hastings). In April, 1989, impropriety took place between the defendant and herself. On September 27t, 1989, she left his service and came back to Dover, and a child was born at the Workhouse in January, 1899, of which the defendant was the father.

A warrant for the arrest of the defendant, who had been summoned as a witness, was then issued.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 9 February, 1900.


George Selmes, who did not appear, was summoned on remand to show cause why he should not be adjudged father of the illegitimate child of Elizabeth Bowles, and an order of maintenance made.

The case had been adjourned from last Monday owing to the non-appearance of defendant, who was landlord of the “White Lion” public house at Hastings. A warrant was issued for his arrest.

Superintendent Sanders said that he had forwarded the warrant to Hastings, and had received in reply a statement from the Chief Constable accompanied by the report of the sergeant, who had to execute it. The latter reported that he had seen Mrs. Selmes, who said that her husband George Selmes had left Hastings on the 27th ult. For the purpose of proceeding to Dover to attend the Court on the 29th ult., when the case was heard. She had not seen or heard anything of him since.

The case was then heard in his absence.

Mr. J. Toms, clerk to Messrs. Stilwell & Harby, solicitors, produced a letter sent to defendant in September last, and a reply offering to pay 10s. per month.

The Bench made an order for 5s. per week.

The Clerk informed plaintiff that at present this would be of no effect, as defendant could not be found, but that in event of his being found she must apply to the Magistrates to enforce payments.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 16 March, 1900. Price 1d.


To the Editor of the Dover Express.

Sir, - Will you permit us to call the attention of your readers to an exceptional opportunity of interesting themselves actively on behalf of the children of our country.

As the law now stands:-

Children of any age may buy beer and spirits at public0houses for consumption off the premises.

Children of thirteen and upwards may buy and drink beer on the premises.

Children of sixteen and upwards may buy and drink spirits on the premises.

Both reports of the Royal Commission on the Licensing Laws agree in recommending the prohibition of the sale of intoxicants to children under sixteen years of age for consumption on or off the premises.

A Bill for giving legislation effect to these proposals has been introduced into Parliament by Mr. Robinson Souter, M.P., and last Friday passed the second reading in the House of Commons without a division.

We believe, however, that in Committee a strong attempt will be made to mutilate the Bill, if not to wreck it.

It would greatly strengthen the hands of our legislators in opposing such attempts did they know how strong a public opinion in support of the measure.

We therefore appeal to all who desire this long-delayed reform to come into operation at the beginning of the new century:-

(1) To write to the Member for Dover, and request him to vote for the Bill, opposing all amendments.

(2) To promote the passing of resolutions in favour of the Bill by Societies of any kind with which they may be conducted.

We are,

Yours faithfully,

H. Ferris Pike,

Secretary, Dover Temperance Council.

Clara friend,

Secretary, Dover Church of England Band of Hope Union.

Charles W. Chitty.

Secretary, Dover and District Band of Hope Union.


From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald. 24 February 1900. Price 1d.


A fire attended with very serious consequences broke out at Mr. G. Whiteman's farm, at Tyler Hill, at twenty-five minutes past one on Sunday morning. The alarm was given in Canterbury at quarter to two, and the County and Kent Fire Brigades immediately turned out their engines and proceeded to the scene of the outbreak. On their arrival it was found that the tour-kiln hop cast was well alight, also the large store which is really an extended portion of the oast. Water was plentiful, but the flames had got such a hold that it was impossible to save three of the kilns, which fell in. The other kiln, though saved, was considerably damaged. A galvanised lodge containing a considerable quantity of charcoal also caught light, and was entirely destroyed, the charcoal burning with such fury that the iron was a mass of molten metal. The oast, which was a modern one, built at considerable cost, contained about 300 pockets of hops of last year's growth, and these were all destroyed, whilst some hop washing and sulphurating machines, hop baskets, etc. were also burned. The sparks at times flew in all directions, and in very close proximity to other farm buildings and buildings, but fortunately these were all saved. The brigades had no light task before them, and they pumped on the flames continually for three hours. At a quarter to eight the fire having been got under, the County Fire Brigade, which was in charge of Lieutenant Henshaw, left the premises, the Kent Brigade, under Lieutenant King, remaining behind, the farm, stacks, and buildings, being insured in the latter office. The hops were insured in the Sun Office. The Kent Brigade returned to Canterbury at four o'clock on Sunday afternoon. The damage is roughly estimated at 3,000. A rumour is current that a considerable quantity of apples has been stolen from the oast, and it is conjectured that the thief or thieves dropped a light when they entered the building, and so caused the fire.


From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, 12 May 1900. Price 1d.


Mr. Henniker Heaton wishes us to acknowledge the receipt of an unusually large number of petitions and letters from his constituents asking him to vote for and generally to support the Bill prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor to children under sixteen years of age. The Bill is now going through its various stages in the House of Commons. Among others who have signed the petition are his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury.


From the Whitstable Times, 16 June, 1900.


Mr. Henniker Heaton, M.P., desires to acknowledge a further large number of letters and petitions from Canterbury in favour of the bill prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor to children under the age of 16 years. Among those were from Independent Order of Rechabites, signed by His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury and H. A. Langston, Secretary; the Canterbury Temperance Council, per Rev. William Ernest Evill; The Canterbury and District Wesleyan Church (ten churches), per Rev. T. Bealey Jefferies and Walter Cozens; St. Mary Bredin Sunday School teachers, per Walter Sagar; the teachers of St. George the Martyr and St. Mary Magdalen Sunday Schools, per Rev. Francis T. Vine; St. Gregory the Great Sunday School teachers, through the Vicar, the Hon. and Rev. A. F. Northcote; St. Andrews Presbyterian Church of England Sunday School teachers, per the Rev. J. Patterson; St. George's Place, Canterbury, Baptist Sunday School, per Mr. Fortescue West; Guildhall Street Sunday School teachers, per Mr. A. Amey, Superintendent.


From the Whitstable Times, 30 June, 1900.


In the House of Commons on Monday, Sir H. Cambell-Bannerman asked whether, having regard to a memorial signed by 198 members of Parliament, representing all Parties, asking for special facilities for passing the Bill prohibiting the sale of liquor to children, Mr. Balfour would grant facilities for passing it.Mr. Balfour in the course of his reply said:- Looking over the measures which necessarily stood before the Bill, under our rule, I found that the granting neither of one Wednesday nor of two, or even three, would probably have any effect upon its fate. There then remains to be considered the only alternative policy, which is whether additional ordinary Government time should be given to this Bill - whether it should be given, in other words, privileges as a Government measure. I am not aware that there has ever been done for a controversial measures - (Ministerial cheers) - accept in the single case of the Eight Hours (Minutes) Bill, and I do not think that that example is one which would induce any Leader of the House to favour exceptions of this character. I am convinced that if the right Hon. gentleman were in my place, and if he were of opinion that this was a controversial Bill, he would find it impossible to grant the facilities he asked. There remains only the question whether this is a controversial Bill or not. I have taken some pains to make myself acquainted with its prospects as a controversial measure, and I understand that those who think it uncontroversial do so because it passed its second reading with little or no discussion. It must be remembered by the House that the second reading came on under very unexpected circumstances by a Parliamentary accident, and that what occurred on that occasion offers no sufficient indication of the degree at the well-known and fixed time for Parliamentary discussion. Of course it would be quite out of order to discuss the merits of the Bill, but I observe it does contain two principles which I am quite certain would lead to a considerable amount of discussion. In the first place, it lays down that the publican who does not know the age of a child, and who necessarily has no means of knowing it, is to be punished for giving him liquor, while the parent who does know the age is not to be punished, though he sends the child to get it. The other point of the Bill is that it is illegal to send for liquor a boy of fifteen but legal to send a boy who is sixteen. These points are evident points to be discussed, and ought to be discussed, and under those circumstances it is impossible for me to regard the Bill as uncontroversial, and that being the case I must decline the suggestions made by the right hon. gentleman.


From the Whitstable Times, 7 July, 1900.


For samples of ale brewed in Kent (nine gallons) Messrs. H. T. Wickham and Co. of the Brewery, Yalding, gained the first prize and Messrs. Cobb and Co., Margate Brewery, was reserve and highly commended. The other brewers who entered in this class were Mr. James Fleet, Fleet's Brewery, Ramsgate, the Canterbury Brewery Company, Messrs Kenward and Court, Ltd. (Tonbridge), and Messrs Flinn and Co. (Herne Bay.)


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 13 July, 1900. 1d.


...... Several transfers highlighted on the relevant pages.....

The next transfer was was that of the "Liberty" in Adrian Street, from Mr. I. Holt, to Mr. H. S.Maslen, late of the "Old Commercial Quay Inn."

After this Mr. Vidler said he thought that there was another transfer from the liberties.

Mr. Hatton Brown: Why, we have just had the "Liberty."

Mr. Vidler: I said from the liberties - the liberties of the Borough. (Laughter.)

The transfer was of the renewal of a temporary permission to draw at the "Rodney," at Garlinge, (Margate) granted to Mr. T. J. Holley.


From the Whitstable Times, 28 July, 1900.


Edward Baker was charged on remand with assaulting Stephen George Beau, of 32, Black Griffin Lane, and after hearing the evidence the Bench sentenced prisoner to a month's hard labour.

Edward Baker and David Quinn were then charged with stealing two stone bottles of beer, and for this offence Baker was sentenced to a month's hard labour, and Quinn was fined 20s. and costs, or in default a month's hard labour.

Baker's sentences are to run concurrently.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 10 August, 1900. 1d.



We should like to point out that in connection with our application to the Licensing Committee for a wine and spirit license, that is not our intention to go into the wine and spirit trade either wholesale or retail. We merely require the license in connection with our catering department, it being necessary to have a license for the supply of the various Officers' Messes that we might undertake in the District. We shall be glad if you will give publicity to this memorandum, as we should not like a wrong construction to be put upon this matter, as we have no desire or intention of going into the wine or spirit trade.

Richard Dickeson & Company.

Dover, August 6th, 1900.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 31 August, 1900.


The annual meeting of the Magistrates for the purpose of renewing licenses and of hearing applications for new licenses, was held on Monday at noon at the Sessions House. The chair was taken by the Mayor (Sir William Crundall), and there were also present Dr. Astley, J. L. Bradley, H. Peake, M. Pepper, W. J. Smith, W. H. Thorpe, G. R. Killick, E. Lukey, A. Bottle, W. J. Adcock, C. W. Bagshawe, and F. Prescott, Esqrs., and Capt. Cay, R.N.


The renewal of the old licenses was first considered, and the “Duke of York” and the “Lord Nelson,” the holders of which were called forward.

The Mayor addressing Mrs. Ball, the landlady of the “Duke of York,” said that he found that she had been convicted on 11th September, and fined 30s., for permitting drunkenness on the premises. He must caution her that she must take more care in the future or the consequence would be serious. Addressing Mr. A. Carpe, landlord of the “Lord Nelson,” he said that he had been convicted on September 25th for serving a drunken person, and he must be more careful in the future.


Mr. T. Harby asked if anyone opposed the renewal of the old licenses.

The Rev. G. Sarson said he opposed the renewal of the “Exeter Arms.”

Mr. R. Mowll appeared for the tenant, G. E. Jarvis.

The Rev. G. Sarson then went into the box, and Mr. T. Harby wished to swear him, but the Rev. gentleman asked if he were not at liberty first to explain the facts.

Mr. Mowll said he had no objection.

The Rev. G. Sarson said he considered the house had been a great evil in the street for many years, and he wished the Police to be called to say whether they did not corroborate him. He had not done this without notice, and he had written to the brewers. He had never objected to any house in this way before.

Mr. Mowll: With the possibly exception of the “Harp” last year.

The Rev. G. Sarson remarked that that was a case of a back door next the church.

Mr. R. Mowll said the notice was not correct; it ought to have been serves seven clear days. He would, however, not take advantage of that technical objection, but answer the case on its merits.

The notice of the objection was then read, the three grounds of objection being – 1st, the existence of the license was to the detriment of the interests of the public in the neighbourhood; 2nd, that the house was not well conducted; 3rd, that the licence was not required by the necessities of the neighbourhood.

The Rev. G. Sarson was then sworn. He said he could only repeat what the notice said. He had constantly been annoyed by noises from this house, and for years there had been a very unseemly state of things there. The licence was not required, as there were five in the same street.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll. He was not a teetotaller, but had never visited a house in his parish for refreshment. He wrote to the brewers on May 11th, “I have had for many years repeated evidence that your house, the “Exeter Arms,” is causing much wretchedness in this neighbourhood. If you could see your way to closing it many families would have great reason to thank you.” In reply he received a letter from Messrs. G. Beer and Co., “We have never had any complaints ….. if you will furnish us with some particulars, as it is our most earnest desire that our houses should be conducted in such a manner that no complaint should be made against them.” On June 7th he replied, “I don not know what means of receiving complaints you may have, but I think if you consult anyone you will get corroboration of what I say …. I cannot give particulars without naming individuals …. I am unwilling to do so for reason you will respect …. The noise I have long associated with the house is very bad …. If it is possible to drop this house you might get a license for a house in a quarter where less mischief would be done.” He had given Messrs. Beer and Co. no particulars. There were many things that could be complained of, but he had no dates. Some time ago there was a great fight outside the house. It was said that the persons who were taking part came out of the house, but he did not know…

Mr. Mowll: Do not trouble their Worships with things you cannot prove.

In answer to Mr. Mowll, witness said he was not in a position to contradict the statement that there was not a single entry recorded against the house.

Mr. Sarson said he wished the Police to be called to substantiate his statement.

The Superintendent asked which one he wished to call.

Mr. Sarson said that anyone would do who had been on duty in the district.

Police Constable Spinner was called. He had been on duty 21 times in the last year in Limekiln Street. He had never seen a disturbance at the house, not had his attention called to it.

Mr. Sarson remarkedthat this witness did not seem much good.

Sergeant Fogg said he had had some complaints made about the house, but he had never seen anything to justify his reporting it on visiting it.

Mr. Sarson, addressing the Bench, said he did not think it was necessary to have such evidence as might have been called. If they had reason to believe the grounds of his request they had the right and power to grant it.

The Mayor, without calling on Mr. Mowll, said, the Magistrates had made up their minds to renew the license. There had been complaints as to the sanitary arrangements of public houses in the Pier district, and they hoped every effort would be made to remove the cause of complaints.


The Mayor announced that of the early morning licenses the Magistrates had made up their minds to renew the following that open at 3.30 – the “Barley Mow,” “Pier Inn,” “Duchess of Kent,” “Garrick's Head,” “Rose and Crown,” and the two railway refreshment buffets, and not the others unless they could show cause. With regard to the five o'clock licenses, the Magistrates would renew the “Griffin Inn,” the “Sir John Falstaff,” the “Tower Inn,” and the “Park Inn,” but not the other unless sufficient reason could be given.

Mr. Vidler said that 25 early morning licenses had not been renewed.

Mr. E. W. Knocker applied on behalf of Messrs. Leney and Co., the owners of the “Bull Inn” and “Union Hotel” to renew early morning licenses to those houses, on the grounds that the former was greatly needed, especially as there was a large paper works close by, and a great many persons passed by in the early morning, and the “Union Hotel” on account of those connected with the shipping and boats. They would undertake that coffee should be kept ready. Messrs. Leney had three other early morning licenses, but they would not ask for their renewal.

Mr. H. Fielding (Canterbury), on behalf of Messrs. Gardner and Co. Ash, applied for the renewal of the early morning license of the “Prince Regent Inn,” Market Square. There was three days a week a great influx of people to the market, and coffee had been supplied by the owners, and would always be supplied. He also asked for the renewal of the privilege to the “Terminus Hotel,” the landlord of which was a naturalised Frenchman, and being well known across the water, had a considerable number of foreigners frequently coming in the early morning, and the house was also used by the men on the night duty at the S.E.R. Station. The firm had four other licenses, but they were not asked for.

Mr. Clinch (Gravesend) applied on behalf of Mr. Wells, of the “Railway Inn,” for the renewal of the privilege on the ground that the house provided accommodation for fishermen with whom Mr. Wells had business connections.

Mr. Wells was called, and gave evidence to the same effect.

The Mayor asked how it was that when the Police visited the house they found it closed. They did not see the necessity of granting licenses when they were not utilised. Before six o'clock no one required spirits, wines, or beer, and therefore they had determined to only give licenses to those people who sold tea and coffee, and in some cases where the Inspector had visited he found the houses closed, or no tea or coffee.

The applicant remarked that very few people required tea or coffee now. The house was only opened early when fishermen were about.

Mr. Clinch also applied for a five o'clock license for the “Brussels Inn.”

The Mayor said that house had been closed on the three occasions on which it had been visited.

A similar application for renewal was made for the “Shakespeare Inn” by Mr. G. Scott.

The mayor said that in that case there had been permission for half-past three, but the Police reported that the house had never been opened before half-past five, and no tea or coffee supplied.

Mr. Scott said he had never had any of the Police ask for some.

Police Sergeant Fogg was called. He said he visited the house on three occasions, and saw no tea or coffee supplied. He did not ask for it now, nor go into the kitchen to see if it was ready to be served.
Mr. Fielding said he did not know that the applicant could be called. He should like to put Mr. Doble in the box in reference to the application for the renewal of the early morning license of the “Prince Regent.”

Mr. Doble was called. He stated that when the Constable asked for coffee it was not ready then, but he had just put it on, and not knowing that he was a constable, supposed he would not want to wait, and told him it was not ready. He always opened his house early, and frequently served more than 100 persons between five and six, and in the winter depended upon it for a living.

The Magistrates retired to consider the question, and on returning the Mayor stated that in regard to the “Bull Inn,” “Union Hotel,” “Prince Regent,” “Terminus Hotel,” “Railway Inn,” the “Shakespeare Inn,” and the “Brussels Inn,” the Magistrates had allowed them to open at five o'clock provided that tea and coffee were ready for supply. The houses would be watched, and the licenses would not be renewed unless this was done.


The Mayor announced that the adjourned Session would be held at Broadstairs on September 19th, at 2.30. New applications would not be heard at Broadstairs, but at another meeting to be held at Dover the following day, the 20th ult., at 12 o'clock.


The following Licensing Committee then sat to hear applications for new licenses:- The Mayor, Dr. Astleym and Messrs. Bottle, Adcock, Bradley, Peake, and Pepper.


Mr. E. W. Knocker applied on behalf of Mr. E. March, Secretary of the Dover Promenade Pier and Pavilion Company, for a license of the Pavilion to be erected on the Pier.

Mr. M. Bradley, on behalf of the Temperance Party, and Mr. Clinch on behalf of Mr. Appleton and the trade generally, appeared to oppose.

Mr. Knocker said that the Pavilion to be erected was 124 feet by 50 feet, which would comprise a concert room, 100 feet by 50 feet and 32 feet. The Bench would be aware of the circumstances under which the Pier was erected, and the erection of the Pavilion, had been felt to be absolutely necessary. The cost, 6,000, had been provided, and the work would have been commenced last year, but for the exceptional prices of materials. The Company had a substantial capital of 25,000, and 383 share-holders, of which 301 were Dover people, and 200 held five or less shares. Therefore, in fact, the application was from those fellow townsmen to the Licensing Committee to grant them the privilege of providing refreshments in this building. He thought that he would be able to show that it was needed. There had been complaints by visitors, and especially those arriving by boats, of not being able to obtain refreshments. The Pier was also frequented by a large number of persons, many of whom came from beyond this locality for the fishing. In bad weather there was no shelter on the Sea Front and last Bank Holiday a large number of people applied for shelter at the Pier gates, which could not be provided. He would point out what an advantage it would be to Dover to have at the end of the Pier a building of this sort, with the additional advantage of being able to obtain any refreshment that might be needed. There was, so far as we know, no Pier on the coast which had a Pavilion and was without a license, and for there to be an exception so far as Dover was concerned would be unfortunate. He was rather surprised that the Licensed Victuallers opposed the application, as it would do them no harm, there being no house near.

Mr. A. E. Marsh, Secretary of the Dover Promenade Pier and Pavilion Company, produced the plans of the Pavilion, showing the refreshment bar at the land end of the Pavilion, occupying the additional 25 feet beyond the concert hall. He also gave evidence bearing out Mr. Knocker's opening statement.

By Mr. Clinch: Do you say that no other Pier does not hold a license? I should like to know the name of one.

I would suggest Southend, where a license has been repeatedly refused. – Oh, that is on the river; I meant on the South Coast.

Witness stated that the refreshment bar would be 20 feet by 8 feet. Liquors would be sold in the ordinary way. A license had been granted to the Granville Restaurant on the Sea Front; that was something under a quarter of a mile from the entrance to the Pier. In regard of the “Burlington Hotel,” he did not think seaside trippers would be likely to frequent the lounge there.

By Mr. Bradley: Can you tell me when the decision was arrived at to apply for the license?

Witness: When the application was signed about 23 days ago. A previous application had been made seven years ago.

Mr. Bradley: Was anything said when the prospectus was issued for the purpose of obtaining money to build the Pavilion of any intention to apply for a license?

Witness: No.

Mr. Bradley: has the opinion of the share-holders been taken?

Witness: No, the Board of Directors do not confer with the Share-holders as to the mode in which they will work the Pier.

Mr. Bradley: Was the decision of the Board of Directors to apply for this license unanimous?

Witness: Probably you will have an opportunity of asking the Managing Director. I do not divulge what takes place at the Board Meetings.

Mr. Bradley: Unfortunately in a matter of this sort I am entitled to have an answer?

Witness: The resolution was carried, otherwise the application would not have been made.

Mr. Bradley: I ask whether it was carried unanimously?

The witness declined to answer the question, and Mr. Bradley strongly insisted on his rite to put this question.

Mr. Knocker: You must answer it.

Witness: yes, the resolution was carried unanimously. (Loud laughter.)

Mr. Bradley: Information differs.

Witness in reply to further questions said that most of the boats supplied refreshments on board. Refreshments in the way of eatables would probably be supplied in the bar.

H. W. Thorpe said he acted as managing director, and the application was made by order of the Directors. He considered the license would be of immense advantage to the Pavilion which it was proposed to erect, and meet a need considerably felt even since the Pier had been erected.

By Mr. Clinch. The Pavilion would be erected whether the license was granted or not.

Mr. Clinch in addressing the Bench, asked if ever such a weak case was put for what was an application for a public house license. It was purely and simply an application to benefit the Company, and the only evidence they had was that of the managing Director and the Secretary. Last year he had opposed the granting of a license to the Granville Restaurant. That had been granted and now the Promenade Pier Company said, “Why can't we have one?” he submitted that no necessity for such a license had been made out.

Mr. M. Bradley, in opposing the application, said that those who instructed him were not animated by a feeling of hostility to the Pier, as some of them were large shareholders, but there was a difference of opinion as to this. He thought it would have had a great deal more force if a meeting of shareholders had been called and given an opportunity of expressing their view whether a license should be applied for or not. If the application were granted there would be simple one more drinking bar on the Sea Front, and adding to an already highly competitive trade. It would also tend to lower the tone of those who frequent the Pier. They had had complaints that the behaviour on the Sea Front this year had been worse than it had ever been before, and if this license were granted people might not have the opportunity they have now of getting away from the rowdiness of going on the Pier.

Mr. Knocker remarked that the Pier had held a license every Regatta Day, and there had been no complaints.

Mr. Clinch said that this was because a licensed victualler had held it. A person of respectability and experience. (Laughter.)

The decision of the Magistrates was deferred.


Mr. Mowll applied on behalf of William C. N. Chapman, for Messrs. Beer and Co., for a license for a house at the corner of Wyndham Road and Gsochen Road, Tower Hamlets.

Mr. Clinch and Mr. Bradley opposed the license.

Mr. R. Mowll, in making the application, pointed out how much Tower Hamlets had increased in the course of the last few years. The site of the proposed house was at the end of Wyndham Road, being actually in Goschen Road. The whole of the house on the west side of South Road had no licensed house of any kind, and the nearest house was the “Dewdrop” in Tower Hamlets Street, which was a distance of 300 yards. He urged it was only reasonable for a large increasing neighbourhood that some further opportunity for obtaining refreshments should be granted to the inhabitants. Messrs. Beer and Co. offered, if the license be granted, to surrender another fully licensed house in Dover.

Mr. Jennings, architect, handed in the plans of the proposed house, which would cost 2,000.

Cross-examined by Mr. Clinch: The rating of the house which was proposed ton be surrendered was 20. the applicants had three houses within 500 yards of the proposed house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bradley: There were no houses on the west side of the proposed house, and on the east side they did not reach it, one plot being vacant. The house would be useful to Wyndham Road, Douglass Road, and Lowther Road, but nearly half the houses were nearer to the existing houses than this one.

Mr. Peake asked what house it was proposed to give up?

Mr. R. Mowll said his client proposed to give up the “Marquis of Waterford,” which Mr. Bradley was so anxious last year for his clients to give up.

Mr. Bradley said that Mr. Mowll was not anxious to give it up last year. (Laughter.)

Mr. Mowll: Not without something in exchange.

Mr. Clinch submitted that the house proposed to be given up was not sufficient, and the Magistrates would have to be satisfied that there was some requirement in the neighbourhood to which it was proposed to take the license. There were five licensed houses in the immediate neighbourhood, and there were no houses in front of this house, none to the west, and only a few cottages on the east. He asked the Bench to say there was no necessity shown, and not to accede to the application.

Mr. Bradley also addressed the Bench in opposition to the license. He pointed out that 130 had signed a memorial against the license, against 60 who had signed in favour of it.

The Rev. E. G. Mowbrey, Vicar of St. Bartholomew's, said the house was not required. There were already nine houses in Tower Hamlets, and it was undesirable that a new license should be granted to the neighbourhood.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: He was a member of the Dover Temperance Council. He should not object to every new license.

The decision was deferred.


This was an application by Mr. R. Mowll on behalf of Mr. Matthews, of Messrs. Thompson and Son, brewers, Walmer, for a full license for a new house on the south side of Elms Road, just beyond where the footpath from “Stepping Down” joins the road.

Mr. E. W. Knocker appeared to oppose on behalf of Messrs. Leney and Co., who were applying for a license in the same district, and Mr. Clinch and Mr. R. Bradley also opposed.

Mr. R. Mowll said that the application was made in respect to an entirely new neighbourhood, and he believed Mr. Knocker would agree with him in suggesting that the locality required a new license, as the nearest house was the “Westbury Hotel,” 2,086 feet from the plot. He thought they would say that this neighbourhood, was sufficiently large to allow of two licenses, and if Mr. Knocker was willing to do as he had done, and offer to give up another license, he thought it only right that both applications should be granted.

Mr. E. W. Fry produced the plan of the new building.

In reply to Mr. Knocker, witness said he knew the property on both sides belonged to the Monins Estate, and he had heard that they had reserved a plot for a licensed building. The premises would cost between 1,600 and 1,700.

Mr. Clinch asked how many houses were in front of this 1,700 house.

Witness: Only one, of course; you cannot have more than one house in front of another.

Mr. Peake asked the name of this house to be surrendered in this case, and suggested that the “Grapes” should be the one.

Mr. Mowll regretted that he was not in a position to offer the “Grapes” at the moment; his instructions were to offer a fully licensed house, the “Duke of York.”

Mr. Clinch: What is the rent?

Mr. Bradley: What is the length of the lease? That would be more interesting. (Laughter.)

Mr. Mowll said it had 31 years to run.

Mr, Knocker said he opposed on behalf of Messrs. Leney, who were applying for an off-license for a house in Eaton Road. His clients had bought a plot of ground on the estate with stipulations, it being the intention of the trustees to reserve this particular plot for a licensed house, for the reason that they thought a licensed house should not be in the main road, and his application would be for an off-license. The Monins Trustees had a large extent of ground there, extending almost half a mile along Monins Road, and they proposed to build frontages one and three quarter miles, and therefore he thought that under those circumstances they should have something to say as to where the public houses should be put.

Mr. Clinch said this was another case of moving a license where it was no use to a place where it might be of some use. If this house was moved from Snargate Street just as much beer would be drunk there.

Mr. Bradley said that he never remembered two more extraordinary applications than Mr. Mowll's. the plots were practically in the dessert, and this particular one was a hole by the wayside – (laughter) – and very close to what was recently a laystall of the Corporation. It was a most eligible site, but he would suggest it should continue in its present use.

The decision was reserved.


Mr. Mowll applied on behalf of Messrs. Dickeson and Co. for a wine, spirit and beer license. It was to enable Messrs. Dickeson and Co. to supply wines and spirits and beers to the officers' messes in the same way as they did in respect of ordinary food. Messrs. Dickeson conducted a very high class business, and were famous almost throughout the world. They asked for this license, which they already had at Aldershot and other places. AT the present moment they had the honour of supplying Mr. and Mrs. Cronje at St Helena. (Laughter.)

Mr. A. W. Prince said the firm had already had the privilege at Aldershot and Salisbury and other places.

In reply to Mr. Clinch, Mr. Prince stated that they had sent a letter to the papers, and said that the omission of reference to beer was an error on his part, as he did not know it was necessary.

Mr. Clinch urged that the Bench should refuse a portion of the application. He contended that it was to enable them to supply bottled beer in the canteen, where a license could be held by a person who was not responsible like a licensed victualler.

Mr. R. Mowll said that canteen licenses had nothing to do with this case. They were granted by the Secretary of State for War, and were not things simply got for by asking.


Mr. Knocker applied on behalf of Mr. W. Cheeseman for an off-license for a site on the Monins Estate.

The application was opposed by Mr. Clinch, Mr. Bradley, and Mr. Mowll.

Mr. Clinch put forward a preliminary objection that the bench should not grant a license to something that did not exist. The notice given was that he intended to apply for an off-license for premises “now in the course of erection.” Under Section 22 of the Licensing Act of 1874, the Justices had power to make what was called a provisional grant, but that only applied to a full license.

Mr. Knocker said the notice correctly stated the state of things at the date of the notice, August 4th, but the premises were since completed, and the applicant had entered into possession on August 11th. This was for premises erected on the site purchased from the Monins Trustees by Messrs. Leney, and set apart by the trustees for licensed premises. The applicant in the previous case, not being able to get this site, had purchased another close by and made an application for a license. A site had been given for a church, and it was a great advantage that licensed premises should be far away from the church. The site was at the top of Eaton Road, it being thought best to have it far away from the main road. In a circular connected with a church there he noticed the population beyond Belgrave Road was put at 2,000. The bench would hardly expect Messrs. Leney to give up a full license for an off-license, but if ever a full license was applied for a full license would be given up. He could not say that the Vicar altogether approved of this, but he did not oppose it, and he did object to the other one ….

Mr. Mowll: Now, now, Mr. Knocker, that won't do (Laughter.) My application has already been made, and Mr. Fallon has not appeared against it.

Mr. Knocker: I carefully weighed my words, because I had a letter from the Vicar, and I understand he has written to the Bench objecting to your house.

Mr. F. Hayward produced the plans, and stated that his firm were agents for the Monins Trustees. They proposed to lay out a mile and three-quarters frontages.

Mr. F. Sankey, who is erecting houses on the estate, thought the license extremely necessary.

William Cheeseman, the tenant, said he entered into possession on the 11th inst., and was to pay 35 a year.

By Mr. Clinch: How many nights have you slept there?

Witness: Every night.

Mr Clinch: Have you a wife and family?

Witness: Yes, but they are not here; they are at the “Kent Tap,” Sandgate.

Mr. A. C. Leney, assistant managing director to Leney and Co., said the firm bought the plot from the Monins Trustees. It was arranged when Mr. Monins was approached some three years ago for a cricket ground. He did not think a full license was required at present.

Mr. Bradley: if you get this license I suppose we shall see you here again for a full license?

Witness: I hope so. (Laughter.)

Mr. Clinch contended that the place was not completed.

Mr. Bradley called attention to the very wise line the Bench had adopted not to grant applications unless an offer was made of another license in some part of the town. He handed in a memorial against the license signed by 3o residents in Eaton Road.

Mr. Mowll urged that the Bench should not grant a new license without an old one being surrendered.


After a retirement of ten minutes the Mayor stated:- The application of W. C. N. Chapman and A. J. Matthews are not granted. The application of E. A. Marsh for a license for the Promenade Pier is granted on condition that amended plans are submitted with regard to the refreshment department of the pavilion for the consideration of the Magistrates at the adjourned meeting on September 20th. The application of Messrs. Dickeson and Co. is granted; that of Mr. Cheeseman is refused.


Thanet Advertiser 29 September 1900.


The adjourned licensing meeting for the Borough of Ramsgate took place at the Town Hall on Monday. The Justices present were the Mayor (Alderman J. B. Hodgson) in the chair, Capt. L. W. Vaile. Mr. S. R. Wilson, and Alderman W. P. Blackburn.)


The licence held by Mr. C. Green, at 13 Harbour-street, the renewal of which was adjourned from the original licensing meeting, on account of an objection raised by the Chief Constable to the effect that the holder did not sleep on the premises, again came up for consideration. Mr. A. H. Daniel, for the licensee, said he understood the only question was whether Mr. Green slept on the premises.

The Justices' Clerk:- That is a very important question under the Act.

Mr. Daniel:- Mr. Green tells me he does sleep on the premises.

The Chief Constable said that since the last application he had visited the house on several occasions, and found there was a bedroom fitted up there for sleeping purposes. He visited the premises on the last occasion on Saturday night, and found a bed which could be and which had been slept in, and was evidently intended to be slept in that night. He was perfectly satisfied the section of the Act in question had been complied with.

The Bench said the licence would be renewed.


The licence held by Mrs. Dunn at Westbourne House was next considered. This licence was not renewed at the last meeting because it was stated that an additional house had been taken into the premises occupied by Mrs. Dunn, in respect of which the licence was held. Mr. A. H. Daniel, for Mrs. Dunn, said their Worships would recollect that he gave formal notice to them of Mrs. Dunn's intention to make a communication between Westbourne House and the adjoining premises, No. 2. This had been done both at the bottom of the stairs in front and at the back connecting the two kitchens. The licence was really not used for the additional premises, all refreshments sold at meal times being brought from that part of the house which was licensed. Mr. H. Bracher (Maidstone), who appeared in the interests of the local temperance party, raised the question as to whether the two houses belonged to the same owner. Mr. Daniel paid one belonged to Miss Dunn the other to someone else. Mr. Bracher said it was abundantly clear there were two separate and distinct house, and instead of Mrs. Dunn asking for a new licence for the added house she came there and said she had enlarged her premises. This, he ventured to say, was hardly a fair way of putting it, when as a matter of fact Mrs. Dunn had taken in a house belonging to someone else, and knocked an internal communication between the two houses. He submitted that this was not what was property considered under the Licensing Act as an enlargement of existing premises. Mr. Daniel maintained that the person who held a lease of a house for six years as Mrs. Dunn did of the adjoining premises was the absolute owner of the house for that period. Any licensed person might under section 74 of the Act add to his premises so long as both were used as one house. The Mayor said the Committee would sanction an extension of the licence to Number 2 provided that the licence was endorsed with the memorandum that the license was so extended only so long as Mrs. Dunn held the lease or the occupation of both properties, and on the understanding that no bar or buffet was to be erected in the new premises.


On the application of Mr. J. Emery the licence of the "Southwood Tavern" was transferred to Mrs. Andrews, wife of the late tenant.